Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1887-08-19
NONE IN DAKOTA.
Secretary Lamar Denies the N. P.'s
Right to the Indemnity Lands
in This Territory.
Except Few Thousand in Lieu of
the Lands Actually Lost
in Dakota.
Fun Sure,

Inc UnlCed States land Omce at this
place has received no official intimation of
the decisions of Secretary Lamar on the
indemnity lands of the Northern Pacific
and other land grant roads in the west, in
volving many millions of acres of valuable
land, but expect the same in the usual rou-
tine of department correspondence.
AS Register Kea understands the secre-
tary's decision from the newspaper re-
ports, the Northern Pacific is not entitled
to any indemnity lands in Dakota except
in lieu of lands actually lost in Dakota.
The loss IN Dakota is small. 1t embraces
old Fort Abercrombie, Fort Ransom, Fort
Seward and our Fort Rice $4,000 acres),
and must fall within 100000 acres. When
the company make up this loss there will
be left over 100000 acres for the settlers.
The railroad company has claimed the
right to select itslien lands anywhere
along the line. In place of the lands lost
in Minnesota and Montana it could
come into Dakota and take all the lands, if
needed, within the indemnity. This view
of the law is rejected by the secretary. He
holds that the lands lost in Minnesota must
find their equivalent in Minnesota; in Da-
kota, Montana and Washington the same.
State and territorial lines must be recog-
nized. If the .secretary's construction
is literally enforced, there
seems to be no chance for the Northern
Pacific to retain the lands selected except
the small fraction actually lost in Dakota.
There seems to be no hope for the holders
of indemnity lands purchased from the
Northern Pacific except to fall back on the
seller. Of course the seller is good, but if
the buyer wants to throw up his purchases
will the Northern Pacific take them back
and return the purchase money? Or will
the Northern Pacific say "no," the matter
will be settled in the courts? If sent to
the courts what will the buyer do in the
meantime if he wants to sell or mortgage
his land? Will not the cloud (the
government denying the railroads title)
defeat a sale'and make the property USE
less as a security? Add to this denial the
additional aS! cloud of a government settler
filing, and subsequent patent, what will be
the situation?
As Tom Lowry told the city council of
Minneapolis so Secretary Lamar seems to
say: II am driving and must hold the
lines"
A CASE IN POINT.
A case involving the indemnity land
comes up next week before the register and
receiver at the United States land office.
George W. Darland will offer his proof to a
tract of land adjoining Winona, and the
railroad company will object to its accept
ance. What the decision will be may de-
pend upon the receipt of the secretary's de-
cision and the departmental instructions
Hereunder. The local officers cannot act
upon newspaper reports, but must wait
until they get their authority in the usual
way.
John Waldron's case comes under this
head. He claims as a settler the townsite
of Winona. Attorney Davis, for the town.
site company, answers that the title OF the
railroad company failing, his clients have
the Sioux half breed scrip location to fall
back on. They scripped this land and the
scrip locations were Cancelled because it
was railroad land. Now if the government
says it isn't railroad land it must be gov
ernment land and subject to appropriation
under the scrip.